[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gNewSense-users] Formatting.

From: Bake Timmons
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] Formatting.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:00:40 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)

>  I forgot to mention something in the previous mail. I think we should
> format all the tables with a 'linux-2.6.24' $LINUX_FOLDER_NAME in the
> script. That means we all should work with the same Kernel
> (

One cause of this problem could be some confusion in the transition
between package and kernel freedom verification.  With the packages,
sub-versions of sub-versions were the norm, so I can say for myself it
does feel a bit unnatural to now deal with the generic 2.6.24 kernel.
After all, some of us are used to downloading any kind of source via a
package downloading tool with its notions of sub-versioning as opposed
to the more direct wget, etc.

I agree with you about standardizing.  Lack of a standard complicates
not only scripting but also manual efforts due to potentially
inconsistent hyperlinking among pages for directories worked on by
different people.  Our communication becomes more complicated, too.
Perhaps worst of all, some web surfers--especially novices--might get
confused and question the soundness of the verification effort.

A *future* ambition would be for us to communicate sub-version
developments quickly and clearly.  E.g., suppose a non-free file is
introduced into version  Here, a "sub-versioned URL" would not
involve the same potential inconsistencies as such a URL for a

For now, as Chris re-iterated, we should all be sticking to the generic
2.6.24 source.  Regarding this, does anyone know if a "redirecting URL"
would work well here?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]